Meanwhile, if you don't live in one of those places and/or you don't want to dissemble about why you want to use marijuana, you'll have to wait longer for the pleasures you assumed would have to be legalized as soon as the people who were young in the 1960s got old enough to fully infiltrate the government.

I had learned not to care. I blew a few smoke rings, remembering those years. Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack, though....

Junkie. Pothead. That's where I'd been headed: the final, fatal role of the young would-be black man. Except the highs hadn't been about that, me trying to prove what a down brother I was. Not by then, anyway. I got high for just the opposite effect, something that could push questions of who I was out of my mind, something that could flatten out the landscape of my heart, blur the edges of my memory. I had discovered that it didn't make any difference whether you smoked reefer in the white classmate's sparkling new van, or in the dorm room of some brother you'd met down at the gym, or on the beach with a couple of Hawaiian kids who had dropped out of school and now spent most of their time looking for an excuse to brawl. ... You might just be bored, or alone. Everybody was welcome into the club of disaffection.

So let's be clear. You can have marijuana for your medical conditions. (It's kind of the "blue pill," isn't it?) But you can't be using it to flatten out the landscape of your heart or to blur the edges of your memory.

131 comments:

The current issue of Scientific American said that marijuana use normally kills brain cells especially in the young, but that in Alzheimer's patients it may paradoxically save brain cells, but they weren't sure what caused either reaction. They were doing the studies with rat brains.

I wonder if Obama still secretly smokes dope, or whether he sticks to cigarettes.

"But you can't be using it to flatten out the landscape of your heart or to blur the edges of your memory"

Red wine does the trick much better. The first sip of a good red gives you that warm all over feeling. Plus you're getting anti-oxidants, maybe helping the good cholesterol and a little boost of courage to talk to that guy who keeps checking our your package at the bar.

For as long as I've followed this blog, Althouse has struck me as pretty loyal to federalism principles. So is this a post of approval of federalism at work or is she expressing disapproval of federalism when its effects don't conform with certain values? Can you have it both ways? Everyone seems to want to...Obama included.

A Recipe for an enslaved mind: Take two mind blanking out drugs , and believe whatever voices you hear when you wake up. Big Pharma will have to double its pledge of political slush funds for the Chief of Pharmacy occupying the role of the Chief Executive.

Dope is probably beneficial for chemo patients as a palative and maybe glacoma, but it is hardly the new pennicilin or cure all. Med Marijuana is fine, but let's be honest that this is not about keeping dope from someone who is stage IV cancer, but using this as the camel nose under the tent to legalize marijuana.

Here In Los Angeles the pot doctors are more numerous than ATMs, which they also have inside the "office". They have barkers outside calling you in and many "offices" are within feet of each other and consist of one-room things with a few chairs and a desk. The prescription gives you the right to grow your own as well.

I can't decide between getting a prescription to be legal "just in case, or to avoid being in the database, "just in case".

Say the police found some plants in your back yard. Would you be better of defending on the basis of having the prescription or claiming to know nothing about pot or what it looked like?

Is there not a difference between "legalizing Marijuana" and deciding that the feds shouldn't trample all over the sovereignty of states that have decided to legalize marijuana? Didn't the voters in those states legalize marijuana, not Obama?

Just don't get why you would say that. Is it just an excuse to talk about how Obama smoked pot?

I know too many guys who spent every day of their twenties stoned to be sanguine about the prospect of legalizing marijuana. Regular pot smoking makes you stupid and leeches all ambition out of you. I'd say everyone of them used cocaine from time to time, but not all of them moved on to heroine or crack, the stuff we think of as really bad. But some of them did and find themselves bouncing between prison, rehab, and aimlessness. It's a waste.

I'm all for federalism, though. Let a few states legalize it and see how it goes for them. Apparently it hasn't caused too much trouble in Amsterdam all these years but that experiment will end soon enough when Sharia law is implemented in the next couple of decades.

Bag: I haven't read it, but I thought the writing was supposed to be good in that book.

ITA. I've seen excerpts before but this one convinced me I could never wade through the whole thing.

Of course, the issue here is neither federalism nor the merits of "medical" marijuana.

The issue is the refusal of Obama and Holder to enforce federal law when they see fit, that is, a refusal TO DO THEIR JOBS. Throughout the Obama Administration we are seeing this pick-and-choose approach to law. Some politically favored groups will be given a blind eye, while others who do not have the favor of the One will be demonized and attacked.

If you are not going to faithfully execute the laws of the United States, as you are sworn to do, it is time to go.

There is a coming need for mind numbing drugs for the destitute and hopeless. In the USSR they resorted to using vodka. In the coming Obama Dark Days of Depression people will need something to numb their minds when there are no jobs for them and they have no savings left.

I'm ambivalent: I agree with Montagne, that states should have control over this within their borders; and with other commenters, that drug legalization would probably save quite a bit of money in needless prosecution of largely victimless crime.

(Of course, manufacturers of drugs would find themselves under the same health and safety requirements as other manufacturers; so be careful what you wish for, pot-heads.)

But it really doesn't seem like the best time to open up the use of a drug that seems to rob people of their ambition. The stereotype pot-head slacker with a fast-food job and no future is a stereotype for a reason.

And why does it seem as though just about every move that the Obama administration makes is an effort to increase the population of pot-head slackers? Let's give them "free" government health care, so that they don't need a job to get insurance. Let's extend their unemployment benefits out to two years. Let's destroy American manufacturing with cap-and-tax so that even those few who are ambitious enough to go out and find a job won't be able to.

Maybe Obama looks back on his pot-smoking days as the best days of his life, and he just wants others to experience the same joy of sitting in a puddle of their own waste in the gutter, addle-minded.

This change in policy should put a big smile on Conlaw professors' faces. Originalists know that the Constitution gave no general police power to the Federal government, while the great Brandeis famously approved of the states as laboratories of democracy.

Alex said... Monty - interesting how selective you are about "states rights" when it's convenient for your ideology. But if a state outlaws abortion - then trample all over that state.

MoMo is being entirely consistent here. The framers feared a Federal government that could restrict the rights that citizens enjoyed under their states' governments. The framers of the 14th amendment feared that states could restrict the rights that citizens enjoyed under the Federal government. We get the most rights, not the fewest.

I'd rather they changed the law rather than just decline to enforce it (as part of my general distaste for broad criminalization but selective enforcement which transfers power from legislatures to executives), but it's a step in the right direction. Once they do this and the world doesn't end, maybe Congress can make themselves relevent and update the federal statutes.

Of course, the next likely thing to happen after that will be for SCOTUS to discover a fundamental Constitutional right to consume drugs, thus re-federalizing the issue even worse than before.

"Maybe Obama looks back on his pot-smoking days as the best days of his life, and he just wants others to experience the same joy of sitting in a puddle of their own waste in the gutter, addle-minded."

You described the alcoholic, not the pothead.

There are a lot of people clamoring for the criminalization of weed but would become unhinged at the prospect of someone outlawing their hooch. Alcohol is a true narcotic and toxin that damages liver, nerve, and skin cells. Pot is a psychedelic with no known toxic effects. It is pretty easy to convincingly demonstrate that consumption of alcohol is far more destructive to individuals and society than pot.

I say this as one who has used both substances at some point but has had nothing stronger than caffeine for many years.

Still, it should be up to the individual to decide what he chooses to imbibe. Government intervention is morally wrong and pregnant, as usual, with all sorts of destructive unintended consequences.

The pothead, alcoholic, crackhead, or junkie poses infinitely less threat to society than criminal organizations and gangs flush with money and guns who recruit and ruin entire segments of the population of the poor and disaffected.

When gangbanging, drug dealing, and pimping are the highest and most prestigious aspirations for inner city youths that population has no chance whatsoever. This is solely a direct result of the criminalization of drugs.

As a Libertarian, I’m fairly open to legalization laws in respects to MJ. This story counts far, far lower on the interest pole, at least to me, than does the Hillary staying-in-a-bomb-damaged hotel lie does. To be clear, I’m less interested in what she actually said and far more interested in how her people and libs in general spin it.

Why stop at pot? Why not make painkillers like Oxycodene or morphine available OTC?

Seriously, I am afraid that by the time I need them for cancer (I'm high risk) or am dying, the demonization of these drugs will make them impossible to obtain. That is, without dissembling or advocacy, just when a person is too worn down to deal with it.

I think I should be able to buy whatever I want, whenever I want. Any justification for legalizing pot should apply across the board.

I started reading "Dreams from My Father" out of curiousity about what Obama wrote, and whether he really wrote it. It is 452 pages long (paperback) and I am on page 120. I have wanted to give up several times, but I feel that reading this book is like a school assignment that has to be completed. There is only so much self-absorption and lack of action I can take.

Did Obama really write "dreams from my father"? Is spiderman maybe a real guy? Is fluoride in the water a mind-control substance? This and other questions revealed tonight on "Moronic Delusions of Reactionary Dumbasses" only on Fox.

Reality is highly overrated. I am in favor of all attempts to escape it. When I watch television, I prefer to watch scify, porn, and cartoons. Such shows are more life affirming than Cops, lifetime movies, and the news... I have nothing against drugs and liquor and, indeed, in my ongoing efforts to make my escape, I have availed myself of these tools. Amphetamines and Jack Daniels taken in conjunction give one the rosy outlook of a Rockefeller contemplating his happy childhood. Sadly, though, after the age of twenty five years, the landing is much lengthier than the flight. It's like the joke about the prisoner who spends years tunneling out of his cell only to find that he has escaped into the smaller, danker neighboring cell.....For most of my mature life, my escape has been in long distance running. Five or ten miles on a flattened landscape gives one a pleasant glow. Plus you can pig out afterwards without significant weight gain. If the government knew how pleasurable such an activity was, the tax on New Balance sneakers would be prohibitive......Well, let them legalize marijuana and tax it like crazy. It's fine dodge the government has. The more intolerable life is, the more taxes you have to pay. They tax the fantasies of the poor with lottery drawings. They tax the week end joys of the young with huge taxes on liquor. They even tax the sullen resignation of the dour with taxes on nicotine. Let them screw the potheads then.

"Except that all us Non-druggies have to pay for it. When the druggies need medical attention, unemployment or welfare, or have an accident while stoned, we "squares" foot the bill."

As opposed to paying for all the reams of people in prison and the attendant financial and social costs of rampant organized crime? Get a grip man. And your idea of libertarianism is totally twisted as Alex pointed out.

Where are all the libertarians with praise for this policy change? Where's that genius Glenn Reynolds with the attaboy?

Glenn Reynolds: “THAT WOULD BE GOOD FOR THE COUNTRY: Obama may decriminalize marijuana. But I don’t think it’ll happen, because despite what the headline suggests, he can’t do it without Congress, and I doubt he’d have the votes, or the stomach to fight to get the votes. I’d be happy to be wrong, though.”

Why stop at pot? Why not make painkillers like Oxycodene or morphine available OTC?

At least in California, medical marijuana was never intended to be made OTC. Doctors were supposed to prescribe it. But the Feds stepped in and said any MD who did, would have his license to prescribe narcotics taken away.

Libertarians are a waste of space - their whole philosophy is based on a "free market" fantasy world that doesn't exist and never has existed. The US government currently spends 20 percent of GDP and that's just Federal. It regulates almost every area of human endeavor.

Why? Because the majority of people LIKE Government regulation. And they like Government benefits.

We will never Legalize drugs again. Hello? We had legalized drugs in the USA - until about 1920 any druggist would sell you any drug you wanted. There was no "War on Drugs".

But people couldn't stand all the human tragedy and crime that went with legal drugs. So, they passed federal drug laws. And they aren't going away.

McNeil— was the post from December 2008 supposed to prove something? December 2008, a world away from the Obama Derangement rampant among conservatives today…

Reynolds isn't a “conservative,” but rather a libertarian; he frequently criticizes Republicans and the GOP. Beyond that, there have been more recent postings at Instapundit in this regard that I recall, but they must have used different wording that didn't match my initial search criteria, and I don't feel like spending a lot of extra time searching for them.

About time he kept a campaign promise. He started out well with an early announcement by his AG, but then the raids on the local equivalent of weed Starbucks started back up again. It's nice to see them spell it out.

And I loved the admin's Victorian Auntie scolding about going after state-legal weed being a "waste of resources".

Hahahaha. Fair Play turnaround - and true. The local law enforcement has a conflict of interest here- the dept. gets to keep the proceeds from the sales of anything seized during the raids. It's quick funding.

First, you are quite correct in your criticism. Although I do not see Glenn as an Obama hater at all. As a conservative, I think the change in the marijuana is a step in the right direction. But then I am funny that way.

Federalism is a funny thing though, it is MUCH more appealing when we disagree with the Fed than when we agree with the Fed. That is not a conservative foible, it is more universally human than that.

"...the consumption of drugs has the effect of reducing men’s freedom by circumscribing the range of their interests. It impairs their ability to pursue more important human aims, such as raising a family and fulfilling civic obligations. Very often it impairs their ability to pursue gainful employment and promotes parasitism. Moreover, far from being expanders of consciousness, most drugs severely limit it. One of the most striking characteristics of drug takers is their intense and tedious self-absorption; and their journeys into inner space are generally forays into inner vacuums. Drug taking is a lazy man’s way of pursuing happiness and wisdom, and the shortcut turns out to be the deadest of dead ends. We lose remarkably little by not being permitted to take drugs.

...In any case, there are reasons to doubt whether the crime rate would fall quite as dramatically as advocates of legalization have suggested. Amsterdam, where access to drugs is relatively unproblematic, is among the most violent and squalid cities in Europe. The idea behind crime—of getting rich, or at least richer, quickly and without much effort—is unlikely to disappear once drugs are freely available to all who want them. And it may be that officially sanctioned antisocial behavior—the official lifting of taboos—breeds yet more antisocial behavior, as the “broken windows” theory would suggest.

...Second, a decline in convictions is not necessarily the same as a decline in criminal acts. If methadone stabilizes an addict’s life, he may become a more efficient, harder-to-catch criminal.

...Third, the rate of criminal activity among those drug addicts who receive methadone from the clinic, though reduced, remains very high.

...The legalizers assume that there is a natural limit to the demand for these drugs, and that if their consumption were legalized, the demand would not increase substantially.

...The conclusion was inescapable: that a susceptible population had responded to the low price of alcohol, and the lack of other effective restraints upon its consumption, by drinking destructively large quantities of it. The health of many men suffered as a consequence, as did their capacity for work; and they gained a well-deserved local reputation for reprehensible, violent, antisocial behavior.

It is therefore perfectly possible that the demand for drugs, including opiates, would rise dramatically were their price to fall and their availability to increase. And if it is true that the consumption of these drugs in itself predisposes to criminal behavior (as data from our clinic suggest), it is also possible that the effect on the rate of criminality of this rise in consumption would swamp the decrease that resulted from decriminalization. We would have just as much crime in aggregate as before, but many more addicts."

"But people couldn't stand all the human tragedy and crime that went with legal drugs. "

OK here we have a strong contender for the stupidest comment of the day-week-year.

As opposed to what we have now with drug cartels, gangs, prisons full of drug offenders?

You have no problem interfering in people's lives when it comes to things that aren't in your interest don't you? Just like a "liberal".

You actually are ignorant enough to think that the criminalization of pot while alcohol is legal makes sense? If you were consistent you would be for the prohibition of alcohol too because it is much more costly to society, but you probably drink yourself and therefore would be against because it's in YOUR interest. Feh.

I respect Theodore Dalrymple but not as much as Milton Friedman. Besides the social decay in Britain has causes that go far deeper than substance abuse and are definitely responsible for a lot of the motivation for substance abuse. People are much less likely to resort to destructive behavior if they have something to live for and the emotional development that comes from a healthy family and community structure.

MM is right too, maybe for the first and last time, that people have a distorted view of what pot smokers do. Some zone out but not all. You might be surprised to know that pot use is very common amongst the extreme sports crowd. Snowboarders and mountain bikers doing stunts that require supreme levels of skill often do so when high on pot. Obviously it does not interfere with their execution of very sophisticated maneuvers.

But what the hell let's just throw them all in jail at the cost of 100k or more year. Yeah that's really smart.

Not that I do this very often, but people have such preconceived notions of what people do when they are stoned. Not everyone plays videogames and pigs out. Some folks go hiking or clean the garage."

Monty, I think this is the first time I've ever agreed with you.

The stoner stereotype is often on-target, but from what I see, it is a small part of the story and more representative of young adults in general. Most adults over 22 I know who smoke pot are of the workaholic type or just normal. The stoner stuff is just caricature. When people use it in their arguments, I know they don't know much about it.

I don't like what MJ does to people who use somewhat heavily long term (like 20-30 years). Not only does it reduce or eliminate motivation in many cases, but it also seems to make them insanely environmentally sensitive. You had better remember to turn on the fan in the bathroom after you are done, if you don't want them running screaming outdoors when they follow you in there.

BUT this two level system was just insane. It was legal at the state level in these states with a prescription, so the feds would jump in and prosecute (or, some times, local police under federal statutes).

Plus, I also think it crazy to fill our prisons with pot heads. For the most part, they aren't violent, and so you can't justify it as protecting society from them.

There are drugs whose users I do think that society may want to protect us from, such as meth. and maybe even cocaine. But the insanity is that they are quasi-legal with the right prescription (or at least used to be). Indeed, I had a prescription for speed when I was in law school (dex, not meth, but still speed). I found the bottle the other day, half full, and wondered if the remaining pills had any efficacy at all, 20 years later. Threw them out instead.

Mild drugs like pot are an easy obsession for some which is accessible and has a culture you can join. The same is true of sci-fi geeks, workaholics, blog addicts, etc. The important thing is how you incorporate such things into your life. Is it just another food on a broad cuisine or is it pushing everything else out. Different people handle this very differently, some well and some poorly. That is no justification for jailing those who smoke pot. It's just a liberty issue for me. Liberty always involves accepting some things of which we may not all approve or share.

Lately, I have sacrificed too much for my blog reading obsession, I will cull that some going forward, but it should not be illegal because some waste their whole day doing nothing else. Imagine all the underwear clad "suspects" on the "Cops" shows during the blog-control raids.

When I joined the LP, it became readily apparent that the second greatest reason the party had not made bigger election inroads was that, simply due to their nature, organizing Libertarians is a lot like herding cats.

However, given the political landscape we find ourselves in as the Boomers (heaps of scorn and derision) begin to shuffle off into old age, and the relative incompetence of our national leadership, the LP has been galvanized like I've not seen in the half-decade I've been involved.

Admittedly, it will be an uphill battle against entrenched interests, both Dem and GOP, but it's a fight worth having. They will either adapt to the Gen X's, Y's and Millennials or be forced out of power.

If it sounds like I'm generation-biased, you bet your damned bippy I am. The collective damage done by the leadership class of the Boomers has set us back more any of us realize yet.

I'm glad the path was paved here in the comments for me to declare that pot use is mainstream and pervasive in many different segments of society. Yes, of course the drug laws relating to pot are extreme and stupid. It's fun to see some of you guys flip back to being conservative Rebublican types after being "independent" and "libertarian" since Obama took office.

Care to expand on that? From what I've been following, it looks like the general consensus here is that the current drug laws are bad, m-kay? (lol, couldn't resist).

There's nothing inherently conservative about prohibition laws. In fact, on the political spectrum, they tend toward the left, toward control. As you tend toward the right, you have less and less control, all the way to the extreme, which is anarchy.

That he and his arrogant "never waste a good crisis" minions are interpreting his narrow victory over an abysmal Republican candidate and the pendulum swinging to Dems in Congress as a Mandate.A Mandate as big as Reagan's in 1984. Bigger than Nixon's in 1972. Equal to LBJ's Landslide victory.

And with the nation unified in adoration of The One - they have absolute right to pick up the whole McGovernite-Teddy Kennedy agenda and ram it through. Or make sweeping executive orders.

Women on submarines, middle class to be hit with huge cap n' trade hidden taxes, employers hit with cost of Obamacare and passing it on to employees, gays in the military.

Marijuana legalized as a Fed hands off "leave it to states" prerogative while Obamaites wish to put tobacco, fast food, soda, candy under the Federal leash - more, or for the 1st time. Along, of course, with new Fed involvement in the alcoholic beverage, meat, spinach-growing industries.

Trillions loaned to Dem constituency groups the people will have to pay for eventually, announced as the other half of the Goldman-Sachs NYC crook financiers stood behind Obama. Another "Landslide Mandate" based on voters rejecting an abysmal Bush II, failed Reaganomics theory, an unpopular war, Republican corruption.

The problem is all the crap that Obama is trying to foist on people in short order to bring America into "radical, correct Progressive Change" is culmulative. It is too much, too fast.

Make progressive law, then rely on the courts to block any changes to progressive law. It happened with many disastrous "Great Society" programs and failed legislation.

I happen to favor Marijuana legalization...but like many people, I wonder about that "blow for freedom" being delivered while Pelosi, Obama, Waxman are out to demonize, ban, or more heavily tax candy, french fries, soda, beer, tobacco. And send Federal regulatory inspectors to farmers markets and push stores to ban selling of "planet-killing" incandescent bulbs, polyethylene grocery bags, and "bad for kids" cereals, excessive fat TV dinners..

Other posters have mentioned liberal fascism. A hallmark of fascism is it ignores broad themes outside partisan ideology and only seeks those freedoms it's agenda wants, while trying to muster the full weight of government to punish foes...or step back while their brownshirt minions do the work.Liberal fascism:

Marijuana freedom good because progressives want that freedom.Freedom of others to smoke a tobacco cigarette? Bad.

All you can eat free breakfasts and free hot lunches for ghetto kids? Good thing!Ghetto child obesity epidemic? Bad thing! So regulate brown-baggers from bringing candy and peanuts in, and ban Zero-nutrients soda, even diet soda. And impose new Taxes on fast food restaurants, certain food products so we all fight the "obesity epidemic" - which becomes symbolized of course as a fat Southern white male who eats fried catfish, not good organic arugula.Makes sense to a progressive!

It's true that here in the comments you have the conservative/libertarian axis not criticizing this decision. But little praise. My point was more about the Instapundits: their critical stance towards the Obama administration is flexible, and they will remain critical no matter what actually happens with policy. They have decided that "this is the worst administration in history" for a number of reasons, and nothing that happens after that will matter. It's pure partisanship, and HEH INDEEDY, it's exactly what happened to lefties with the Bush administration. They failed to notice that the second half of the second Bush term represented a big change in policy and orientation and continued to unthinkingly brand Bush as BushHitler. I'll be the first to admit that reading right-of-center blogs, which I started to do as a way to raise my blood pressure, has led to a very much more nuanced and less rabidly partisan outlook.

However, BIG however, why should conservatives who observed this process now go out and do exactly the same thing? I know it's simply spite and revenge but I don't think it's going to lead anywhere good. Why all the paranoia, doom and gloom, civil war talk, Obama wants to take the guns, Obama the socialist tyrant, Obama the corrupt Chicagocrat crap?

We have a left-of-center administration filled with competent and ideologically left-leaning technocrats, and while this should cause ideologically opposed folks to desire a reversal in electoral trends in the future, it hardly justifies the complete orgy of delusion that has taken place on the right. Intelligent conservatives should lead their people out of that morass.

There are intelligent conservatives, aren't there?

I'm sorry for the excesses of partisanship on the left during the Bush years. Can rightie critics of Obama come out with dissension that remains within the bounds of reality? I even promise not to call you racist.

Alex- PEPFAR and AIDS in Africa; firing Rumsfeld; quick, decisive action on the financial crisis; the classiness of transition.

But it did take 6 years and relentless, hounding pressure as well as unavoidable realities for any daylight to break through. Also, as someone who never believed that Saddam had WMD's and still believes that Iraq was a titanic misuse of US power, it's pretty hard to forgive that.

From my discussions with sentencing Judges and defense attorneys it seems that about 20% of heroin users ever clean up their lives sucessfully. With crack cocaine and Metamphetamines addicts the success rate is closer to zero.So legalising drugs is inhumane no matter how much money is saved. Once upon a time the Bible Belt South States severely limited to the bigger cities alcohol sales and forbade gambling. Of course the illegal market made some rich (think Joseph Kennedy), and those persons also donated to Baptist Pastors to keep the restrictions going politically. Today the Government simply runs it openly for profit.

Monty - The swelling opposition to Obama is not "just hardcore Republicans". It is moderate Republican&Democrat, and independents.

I voted for Obama.

But what I see is a radical progressive government committed to an agenda most voters never anticipated in the 2008...And determined to use fascistic tactics on a scale not seen since Nixon and LBJ's time to "quash opponents".

Any Lefties who like certain right-wing Republicans think the tea parties, the growing organizations of quasi-militias is a Republican thing - are sadly mistaken. A few Republicans thinking the Tea Party assemblies were "their peeps" were booed off the podium. The quasi-militia groups springing up lead by saying "Obama may be worse than Bush II". The opposition you do not see, nor do the Obamaites or the Neocons.....and should fear if you are a Partisan...are the ones who feel betrayed by both Parties. The ones who hate the half of Goldman Sachs, et. al in NYC plus half the DC Insiders loyal to Democrats and who hate the other half of Goldman Sachs et al. in NYC and the other half of DC Insiders loyal to Republicans.

Ammo is selling as fast as it can be made, and it is not "a small band of right-wingers" buying the stuff..nor survival kits. Nor is the price of gold being driven by what Republicans are doing.

um, except inhaling smoke, which is a known and proven carcinogenic activity.

How loosely the word “proven” is tossed around. In fact, a study a few years back, involving folks who had used marijuana extremely heavily over many years — decades — of time, showed no increase in cancer risk as a result of so doing.

“People who smoke marijuana — even heavy, long-term marijuana users — do not appear to be at increased risk of developing lung cancer, according to a study to be presented at the American Thoracic Society International Conference on May 23rd [2006].

“Marijuana smoking also did not appear to increase the risk of head and neck cancers, such as cancer of the tongue, mouth, throat, or esophagus, the study found.” […]

“The heaviest smokers in the study had smoked more than 22,000 marijuana cigarettes, or joints, while moderately heavy smokers had smoked between 11,000 to 22,000 joints. Even these smokers did not have an increased risk of developing cancer. People who smoked more marijuana were not at any increased risk compared with those who smoked less marijuana or none at all.” […]

“There was a clear association between smoking tobacco and cancer. The study found a 20-fold increased risk of lung cancer in people who smoked two or more packs of cigarettes a day. The more tobacco a person smoked, the greater the risk of developing both lung cancer and head and neck cancers, findings that were consistent with many previous studies.”

From today:I AGREE WITH GLENN GREENWALD — this new, federalism-respecting policy is a good one: “The Obama administration will not seek to arrest medical marijuana users and suppliers as long as they conform to state laws, under new policy guidelines to be sent to federal prosecutors Monday.”

Now if they’d just show a similar respect for federalism on other subjects. Oh, well. Baby steps, baby steps. And it sounds like California, at least, needs to step up some local oversight. If you’re in danger of losing Xeni Jardin. . . .permalink

What is your objection to this? Is it that Reynolds didn't express sufficient enthusiasm for everything else Obama is pushing? That he'd like to see more of the same? What?

marijuana is tedious because its users so often spout "spiritual" cliches and justifications for its use. alcoholics, cocaine and crack users are much more honest about their high.

daubiere wins the thread with this singular insight.

I had to think about it for a bit, going back over all of my associations with social users, hardcore users, etc, and this was true with only one exception. And before you flame, I've know a LOT of pot users over the years, most bemused about my non-use.

I actually think there probably are some deaths that could properly be attributed to marijuana use — for instance, as a result of increased obesity due to food-tripping — but the number is likely pretty low in my view, especially compared with some of the other extremely deadly habits that were listed.

thanks scott m. seriously, ive used about every drug on the planet at one time or another and nothing is more annoying than the "hippie" drugs like pot, lsd, mushrooms, ayahuasca, etc. anything that tempts people to talk about "expanding their minds" basically. psychoactive drugs make stupid thrill seekers think that theyre mystics. of course its possible to use these substances without the nonsense, like the traditional uses of peyote or ayahuasca, but for the most part westernized people who are drawn to these substances are full of shit and boring as hell. give me a good old fashioned drunk or cokehead any day.

michael, dude, inhaling any burning organic matter is potentially carcinogenic. that goes for wood fires, church incense, whatever. see its this dogged need to prove that your drug of choice is somehow better and holier and more righteous and organic and healthy and spiritually fulfilling that makes potheads tedious. admit that you like it, that its clearly better to not use it but that you choose to use it anyway and your honesty will make me respect your choice a lot more than when you get all superior-like about it.

Jeremy...Tobacco is good for you except for the smell and the loss of lung functions at a 10 year earlier age. Alcohol is good at the famous two beers/glasses limit. But you are the dolt if you see once normal 16 to 20 year olds totally destroyed mentally physically and personality wise by heroin, crack cocaine and methampetamines and chose to ignore that horrible level of destruction.

You can have 'em. (Just had a fascinating conversation, by the way, with psychedelicized physicist Nick Herbert at a party in Santa Cruz the other day — I'll take that by a vast margin over a “talk” with a drunk or cokehead.)

michael, dude, inhaling any burning organic matter is potentially carcinogenic. that goes for wood fires, church incense, whatever. see its this dogged need to prove that your drug of choice is somehow better and holier and more righteous and organic and healthy and spiritually fulfilling that makes potheads tedious.

Asserting that “inhaling any burning organic matter is potentially carcinogenic” doesn't make it so. I just pointed to an apparently well conducted scientific study that showed the exact opposite.

Personally, I'm perfectly willing to accept that marijuana smoking is harmful to the lungs — see, e.g., here and here also in Science Daily — notice however that neither piece asserts that cancer is a significant factor.

Myself, I find some of those other lung consequences to be daunting with regard to heavy use of marijuana, but that doesn't mean I just blithely accept what appear to be unscientific old wives' tales that all smoke is inherently significantly carcenogenic.

"of course its possible to use these substances without the nonsense, like the traditional uses of peyote or ayahuasca, but for the most part westernized people who are drawn to these substances are full of shit"

Ahh, the noble savage.

I have a friend that joined a Native American peyote "group" for a few weeks. As soon as he ran out of the couple thousand dollars he brought, the high spiritual talk of brotherhood and earthly respect from the natives was immediately replaced with: "If you have no more money, then you must leave now."

Once upon a time the Bible Belt South States severely limited to the bigger cities alcohol sales and forbade gambling.

Half the counties in Arkansas are dry. The result is that everybody has to join the local country club, or whatever kind of club, or Chili’s is somehow given the right to serve alcohol in a dry town (still not sure how that happened). So, it’s definitely still out there, but it’s ridiculous and just leads to giant liquor stores on the county line, and a monopoly for the places that are allowed to serve it. And we don’t have casinos, but we do have daily/nightly busses to tunica running.

I don’t mind some drugs being illegal (although I don’t think I’d mind them being legal either), I mostly think that we shouldn’t be putting people in jail for this stuff. Nobody should be in jail for marijuana. It's a waste of time and money for the government and a waste of a life for a person who hasn't hurt anyone but themselves. If you want to make it a 100 dollar fine, have at it.

I don't see the relevance of the objections to marijuana legalization based on health, laziness, etc. It's still none of the Feds business unless there is a substantial public danger that the states are ignoring.

There may be negative effects from MJ use, but they are by no means a serious public danger, so exceptional in degree, that they require the feds to imprison pot smokers. It's just that simple.

WV: stoners Whats up with that? I thought there was some context sensitivity to that program. Now I know it.

Alcohol seems to induce violence. In this regard, certainly marijuana is the better alternative.Imagine if the warmongers at the pentagon transitioned from their cocktails, and such, and blew a little ganja instead. Within a decade, maybe sooner, we could turn that bloody building that houses the worlds worst war criminals into an International Peace Park! Something to be proud of in this country, for a change...

C4 - Seriously? How could you vote for Obama? I know you are no Bushie, and I would always agree that McCain was no conservative, but I would think the number of Jews (and in this case actually socialist Jews) in Obama's retinue would have been a turn-off for you.

Anyway, if it weren't for the massive long term damage Obama is going to do to the entire world, I would be laughing my ass off at all the "independents", "libertarians" and "moderates" who somehow believed that Obama was himself a moderate. There was nothing in his CV or his associations to suggest he was anything other than a radical leftist - yet you took the word of a politician that he was a moderate.

I would like to see legalized marijuana for no other reason than to get the Mexican drug cartels out of the National Forests and public lands. Make it so we can go camping and hiking without being afraid of getting blown up, shot or otherwise done away with by the criminals and illegal aliens who have taken over.

I would like to see legalized marijuana for no other reason than to get the Mexican drug cartels out of the National Forests and public lands. Make it so we can go camping and hiking without being afraid of getting blown up, shot or otherwise done away with by the criminals and illegal aliens who have taken over.

A whole day of commenting on the Justice Department's new guidelines on not wasting resources busting the dying and I miss getting into it until 101 comments in. Oh well...

So I was going to comment on the author's penultimate statement, until I ran across this one from Alex:

Monty - interesting how selective you are about "states rights" when it's convenient for your ideology. But if a state outlaws abortion - then trample all over that state.

Much more pertinent. In what circumstances has the federal government put itself in the position of regulating medical practice? Medical practice is so entrenched at the level of the state as its regulator, that the previous policy made no sense. And did Alex know that cocaine and opioids are legal medicines according to FDA? Yet cannabis is safer than that or even alcohol but they raided dispensaries for supplying it.

It's a comment on just how ridiculous the Nancy Reagan era was for people to not see just how ill-begotten the previous policy was.

But it really doesn't seem like the best time to open up the use of a drug that seems to rob people of their ambition. The stereotype pot-head slacker with a fast-food job and no future is a stereotype for a reason.

I have to say, if there's ever a time to encourage people to get high, it would probably be in a bad economy. First off, the drudgery of this scene is atrocious. So diversions are good. Second of all, marijuana-induced cravings are likely to be a reliable way to spur demand. Seven Elevens could probably use some business what with all the junk food and all.

And third, I keep driving by this billboard that reminds that Bill Gates founded Microsoft in a recession. This is the sort of environment where the creativity involved with spurring entire industries should be encouraged over simply being a busy beaver for the big boss.

holdfast said... C4 - Seriously? How could you vote for Obama? I know you are no Bushie, and I would always agree that McCain was no conservative, but I would think the number of Jews (and in this case actually socialist Jews) in Obama's retinue would have been a turn-off for you.

Answer. The only thing worse than a socialist like Obama is a treacherous man like McCain who would have done 90% of what Obama has done - then given Democrats complete cover by wrapping a John McCain Bipartisan Seal of Approval on (1)4 trillion bailout; (2)Amnesty;(3)Cap 'n trade; (4)Closing GITMO and "torture bans; (5)Legislation against fast food, tobacco.

And just showed up in office with the Other half of Wall Street and Goldman Sachs financiers behind him, and the other half of DC insiders.

The only difference would be less blacks and trial lawyers. But other than that, the same old Ruling Elites, Jews and non-Jews...in different Party hats.

Better the Dems OWN IT. Without McCain strewing figleafs to cover them up.

Of course, you can add to that McCain was favorably inclined to a 3rd major war - against Iran. And made various murmers of approval about US troops to Georgia, attacking Syria, sending troops to "save noble Darfurans, Burmese"..

Kickapooviking wrote: "Imagine if the warmongers at the pentagon transitioned from their cocktails, and such, and blew a little ganja instead."

I used to hold the same belief. Then I learned that Shaka, the Zulu king who whipped the British army with spear carrying warriors used to have his army toke up before battle. These were feiarce, effective warriors, and they were ganja'd up to the gills. Not much peace and love from those dudes.

“I AGREE WITH GLENN GREENWALD — this new, federalism-respecting policy is a good one: ‘The Obama administration will not seek to arrest medical marijuana users and suppliers as long as they conform to state laws, under new policy guidelines to be sent to federal prosecutors Monday.’

“Now if they’d just show a similar respect for federalism on other subjects. Oh, well. Baby steps, baby steps. …”

And what's with the nonsense of saying that tobacco's become illegal? I just got a banana split at the ice cream shop and couldn't watch the game without the garbage from all the nicotine junkies outside wafting in through the front.

The problem with nicotine is that those who use it are the only category of junkie who believe they have a natural right to put their drug into your body. They don't. In this regard they are worse then users of any other substance, junkies of any other stripe.

And I say this as someone who believes cigars aren't half bad, either. At least they don't put formaldehyde and ammonia in the stuff.

Keep the tissue preservative and piss breakdown by-product in your own lungs.

I would bet that the vast majority of NFL owners are conservatives: people who have amassed wealth, who believe in competition and reward for individual effort. But none of them are loudmouths like Limbaugh.

It's true that here in the comments you have the conservative/libertarian axis not criticizing this decision. But little praise. My point was more about the Instapundits: their critical stance towards the Obama administration is flexible, and they will remain critical no matter what actually happens with policy.

You realize that you posted that an hour and a half after Instapundit praised Obama's new medical marijuana policy?

I wonder why the religious right is so adamant on the drug war, despite the destruction it wrecks on society far greater then the use of drugs. I'd even make the hard drugs legal, on the condition that if you wanted to use them you'd have to do so in a carefully monitored environment. Meaning if you want to do PCP, you better do it in a padded cell where you're psycho-rage won't hurt anyone. Building a few a 100K rooms for hard drug users is a lot cheaper then the insane "war on drugs". Simple logic, no?

health care system broke,most visits to the emergency room are for pain, legislate the over the counter sale of percocet lortaband tylenol with codeine, and you will stop all of the 800.00 medicare medicade ER visits, that could be eliminated by a 25.00 bottle of medication, no need for a 10 trillion dollar overhall of the health care system just some common sense self managment of pain by the patient but no one with any power to initiate such a bill has the balls to do so, you would eliminate the black market for these pills, and very likely eliminate a vast majority of heroin on the streets as these drugs delivery basically the same sense of well being to the user,,

One of the early commenters touched upon the idea that Republicans / Conservatives often want to have it both ways. You're all for the government and obeying the rules until they deviate from your ideas of what's right. You're big letter-of-the-law guys when sentencing murderers to death but when pot becomes a bit more acceptable, you're up in arms.

The primary reason for legalizing medical marijuana is to assist seriously ill people with their chemotherapy. What kind of cold-heartedness is required to disapprove of that?. Will there be abuses, of course, but what does that have to do with anything.

Of course this offers another chance to bad-mouth the President, which has never been more in vogue than now, not even a few years ago.

I live in Dallas, We have more than our share of proud conservatives. Quite literally, more than our share.I saw a bumper sticker this weekend that said:"I was against Obama before it was cool"Bad mouthing the president is, as you say Mikeb302000, in vogue here.

Who cares whether it's good for you or not. It's not a crime to do something that isn't good for you (i.e. eat a poor diet, get insufficient exercise, work a dangerous job, be stressed out, etc). Let us decide for ourselves what we want to smoke!